Skip to main content

Can you summarize Niall Ferguson's views in Chapter 14 of The Pity of War?

At the beginning of this chapter, which is the concluding chapter in this book, is a shocking fact about the war's consequences that has since been backed up by historians (and is not usually taught in schools).  The shocking fact is that Britain (and not Germany) was thrown into economic disarray by the end of World War I.  "The paradox was--and still is--that Germany, the loser, was worse off."  Ferguson backs up this paradox with many facts supporting his idea before leading into the thought that, without this irony, Germany may not have been able to gain the momentum for World War II.  


Germany lost more due to a "blow to their prestige" (such as in the loss of their colonies) than due to actual "economic worth."  The reparations Germany was asked to pay, says Ferguson, was unreasonable; therefore, loans were in order.  This put Germany in a better position than the reader might expect.  In fact, "tax reform was deliberately botched out of the desire to avoid reparations."  As a result, reparations were truly avoided by Germany.


Ferguson eventually suggests that the burden of debt was actually more for the British than it was for the Germans.  Ferguson provides a very damning graph on page 416 of the reparations Germany was expected to pay vs. the reparations it eventually paid.  The results are striking.  It becomes obvious to the reader that Germany would recover.  Eventually, inflation in Germany actually "stimulated investment" and allowed postwar Germany to stabilize if not to prosper.  Eventually, Germany simply found themselves ready to "start working out how to pay for the next war."  


Ferguson's views in this chapter, of course, contrast with the usual idea that Germany was completely devastated (both economically, politically, and socially) after World War I.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more